Mossoff on Heritage; Housing; Tariffs; Filibuster; Epstein; War on…? | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Fundamental principles out of reedom, rational self interest, and individual rocks.
This is the Uran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody walk
up here on Brook Show and this, uh, what is it?

Speaker 2 (00:24):
It's Friday, Friday, No River fourth and you can see
stolen the road.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
I am now in Denver, Colorado.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
I'm looking out the window here and there's construction right
in front of my face. But if I can look
just beyond the construction, there's downtown Denver on my right
and the amazing, beautiful Rocky mountains right in front of me.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
So a beautiful site. Anyway.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Yeah, Denver, when the sun is shining as it is
today and the sky is blue as it is today,
is a is a pretty special place, a pretty beautiful place.
It's sadly, it's unusual for me to come to Denver
and for the to be this good.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
But the weather is really nice right now.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
I I'm exhausted, you know, so you'll have to bear
with me a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Today. I want to give you a little bit of
an update on kind of what's been going on.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
And I did yesterday. I did debates on capitalism versus Socialism.
It should be up on the website of the Steamboat Institute.
So if you search on YouTube Steamboat Institute, you'll.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Be able to find a video.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
I think that they've got a debate series and this
is the latest debate, so you can find it in
the Steamboat Institute's YouTube YouTube channel.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
You know. I think it was an interesting debate.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
It's a guy I've debated in the past a few times,
I think four times in twenty nineteen. He has become,
my feeling is my sense, has become less of a socialist,
much more respectful of markets over that time, and it
was hard to get him to disagree with much of
what I said. A few places here and they disagreed.
But overall, I think it was a good debate.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
I think those they learned something benefited from it.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
But it wasn't quite as fiery as a debate as
you'd expect with a socialist.

Speaker 1 (02:18):
Something crooked over here, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Maybe it's not cooked. You tell me if it appears
crooked on your screen, but not play around with it
too much.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
Anyway. That was yesterday. We had about two hundred people
in the audience, a really good turnout. There was a
lot of students, which is really good. It was at
the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. It was dominated by
you know, I'd say people on my side dominated the audience,
which is surprising for an university campus, but maybe for

(02:52):
not for Colorado Springs, which is a quite a conservative
place in the audience prizing to me, I learned after
the fact as he came up and said hello, introduced himself.
We'd met before, but I don't think he remembered that
it was Vernon Smith. I don't know if you guys
know who Vernon Smith is, but Vernon Smith won the

(03:13):
Nobel Prize in Economics in two thousand and two. He
is a free market economist, one of the free market
economists who won Nobel Prizes in the past. He is
I believe over one hundred years old. I might be wrong,
maybe he's ninety eight or ninety nine. But he was there.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
He came up, congratulated me, made a comment about one
of the arguments, and.

Speaker 1 (03:40):
Still shop, still with it, and about one hundred years old.
So that was fun.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
It was fun to Steephenes Smith. The last time I
saw Vernon Smith, he was angry with me, and he
was in the audience at an event probably twenty nineteen.
I think it was ninety eight then. Anyway, he was
in the audience in twenty nineteen at an event in Dallas.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
That I did where I argued that religion was incompatible
with liberty and this is an a mon pellerin society meeting,
and he got really upset.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
He had he used to be an atheist and become
religious to later in life, very late in life, and argued,
you know, pretty aggressively with me that no religious religion.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
Was necessary for liberty.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
So it was good that this time he thought I
did well and didn't have anything to contradict me. So
so that was you know, it was nice that they
came out to an event like that. It was nice
to see somebody at about one hundred maybe maybe but
a little less, maybe a little more around one hundred
years old, still as a shop and.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Engaged as he is. So that was good.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
What else about yesterday's events? I mean, Steamboat always does
a good job, so I congratulate them. Hopefully I'll be
able to do more events with them.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
It was a It was a good event.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
It was well run, it was well managed, and as
I said at the audience was really good in terms
of numbers. I want to say something about the event
I did on Wednesday night in San Francisco. I don't
think I've talked about that event. I think I did
a show just before that event, and so you know,
I think the last show, or maybe the show before that,

(05:19):
maybe it was last show. Somebody made in the super chat,
somebody made a comment, aren't you on talking too much
about Tecker Carlson And aren't you talking too much about
these post libels about all this negative stuff, their negativity
and so on? And I kind of almost agreed with
that and suggested, yeah, maybe maybe there's too much of
that and everything. Well, after Wednesday night, I am recommitted

(05:42):
to know the problem is we don't talk about them enough,
and it's really really, really really important that we talk
about them more and we make arguments against them and we.

Speaker 1 (05:53):
Analyze what they say.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
And so I'm going to be doing more, not less
of that, because what happened on Wednesday. Wednesday was a debate.
It was a debate with me debating basically the audience.
It's a kind of an interesting, weird format which I'll
describe in a minute, but basically.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
The audience.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
The event was put on by the Hamilton society, which
was kind of a group of young men.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
I think it's all.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Men, but I think the Catholic, the religious, the conservatives,
and they've created this kind of debating society in San Francisco.
The members and the people who attend these events are
all startup founders, the ambitious people within Silicon Valley. These
are the entrepreneurs. These are the people creating technology. And

(06:47):
you know, some of them were students, so I talked
to some of them. Some of them were students, like
computer science students at Stanford or at Bokley.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
So this is these are the people who came to
the event. This is the kind of the future of
Silicon Valley and in that sense, the future of the
US economy.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
There were a lot of people there. There were over
two hundred people in attendance at this thing. The event
was a debate. The proposition was Christianity will destroy the West.
I defended that proposition, so it was my argument to make.
I made a speech for about fifteen minutes. I think
I was supposed to talk for fifteen I think I
talked for twenty and then a short Q and A

(07:23):
and then other people could make speeches. The chairman kind
of the person who runs the Hamilton Society made a
speech and then he answered questions, and then other people
in the audience could make speeches, so you can make
a five minute speech.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
And then I made a speech, and at.

Speaker 2 (07:40):
The end there was something called a duel where me
and the chairman of the Society went at it, you know,
kind of debate style, but kind of really quick, back
and forth debate style, which was a lot of fun.
I really really enjoyed it, and I think everybody did it,
you know, shockingly in spite of the fact that the
audience and this is the surprise, right, so the audience entrepreneurs,

(08:03):
computer science people, technology people, overwhelmingly religious, overwhelmingly religious.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
And I got a standing ovation at the end.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
So at the very end when he thanked me, I
mean literally all these people stood up.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
I just argued that Christianity was a disaster, it was
going to destroy the world.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
There was a horrible you know, the whole idea of
religion and Christianity particularly horrible ideas and so on. And
in spite of that, they gave me a standing ovation.
So I was pretty blown away with that. I think
I did a good job, and it was it was
suddenly a lot of fun. I'll state that again, and
I was in the quality of the audience was like,
but here's the thing that really struck me and the

(08:44):
reason why I'm going to be talking a lot more
about these crazies on the right. At least I think
there were two, but at least one explicitly one of
the speeches.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
Don't want that many speeches. Given One of the speeches,
try to make the argument.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
By a young guy, I'm sure really smart again from
Tech made a speech basically arguing that Western civilization was
fundamentally a civilization of Europeans and only Europeans, and it
was not about ideas, It was not at all about ideas,

(09:20):
that it was purely.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
An issue of blood, if you will.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
I mean, the guy who made it was a Spaniard,
so I suggested he do a twenty three in meter
and discover how European he really was. And I told
him the Spanish, the Spanish, you know, empire probably had
more to do, had had more, you know, probably was

(09:45):
successful more because of the Islamic Empire that had been
there before them, the Muslim empire that had been there
before them, than anything European, you know, anyway, I rebucked
what he said and everything, but the very notion that
he would say Western civilization is about being white basically
a European, and that was not He was not the

(10:05):
only one who said that. One other speech was similar
to that, slightly different spin. Okay, that was one speech.
And then a number of people came up to me
afterwards and we were talking, and one of them wanted
to defend ideas of Kurdis Yovin. We'll talk more about
Kurtis Yavin in future shows. Maybe we'll take a video
or article of his and analyze it because I think

(10:27):
it's worth doing. Or maybe we'll have Nicos on and
Nicos has read a lot of Kurtis.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
Havn and we'll talk about We'll talk about that. We'll
talk about that as well.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
I think it's important that he's a thinker, arguably and
intellectual arguably behind much of what's going on in Solican
value terms of a shift to the right. But he
believes in in a monarchy. He believes in running out
the country like a corporation. The country should be run
by a CEO with authoritarian power. Anyway, so that came

(11:03):
up and a number of people were like nodding ahead
and supporting, and then another guy, you know, was kind
of we were going back and forth. At some point
he said, he looked at me with this puzzled look
in his face, and he said, I mean, with the
real puzzled looks.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
I think this was authentic.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
He said, shoe against white nationalism, and I got angry
because that is such a white nationalist is a despicable
idea that I really got angry. And he looked really
puzzled and taken aback by the fact that I would
get angry by this, that this would somehow be something

(11:38):
I would really get upset about.

Speaker 1 (11:40):
That I thought that those were really bad.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
In other words, techa calls and the postal libbulls, that
generally the kind of anti Western civilization nutcases.

Speaker 1 (11:54):
Are really having an impact out there. They really have
an influence. And these are young people, by the way,
A number of them came up to me and said
a number of them came up to me and said,
And many of the ones who came up to me
and said this were these kind.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
Of white nationalists and were the kind of you know,
Curtis you off in, and some of them quite religious.
They came up to me and said, yeah, we listened
to your podcast a lot. And the guy who actually
said about Western civilizations, you and the Europeans, said he'd
heard one of my podcasts, and I said, x y Z.
So these people are listening to what I have to say,

(12:33):
and it's really really important that we start making arguments
against their position, and hopefully they hear them, and hopefully
we have some I have some influence on young people
and sway them away from these ideas before they latch
onto them. You know, who knows if I can be successful,
you know, but we have to try. And these are

(12:55):
the kind of these exactly the kind of people, right,
These are successful entrepreneurs, young, still searching for philosophy, uh,
ambitious again, entrepreneurs tech overentited, science overented, so rational.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
That we can't afford to lose. And so I'm saying again.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
That it's time to it's time to double down and
now and now taking on the right, taking on the
bad elements within the right, uh and analyzing in I'm
sorry it's so negative, and I'm sorry it's it's so
ridiculous and absurd, and and maybe what I need to
do is is is focusing on some of the more

(13:45):
intellectuals on the right and try to analyze their positions,
you know, focus, maybe even I do more shows about
Christianity and and focus in on why Christianity is as
bad as why I think it's as bad as it is,
Focus on Kodis Yawn and Patrick Deneen and some o
the other intellectuals, and really dig down, dig deep into
into why these ideas are incredibly destructive and why I'm

(14:07):
so opposed to it, and maybe even maybe even on
the issue of racism, which I just have always taken
as No, that's ridiculous. You know, that's evil. How could
anybody support it? Maybe we need to maybe I need
to come up with some other arguments with a Kim
who has just on a sticker I thank you. Kim
was at the event, so if you're interested in hook

(14:28):
perspective on what happened that night, you can ask Kim. So, Kim,
thank you for being there, and it was it was
fun to meet up with Kim again. I've seen her
before in uh at Okon, I guess, and in Silicon Valley,
so we.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
Could do that.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
But uh yeah, I mean so I'm not going to
back off as as maybe I suggested I would last time,
and in so in this context, I wanted today to
recognize at a Masoff, at a Masaf who's been on
the show show in the past and is a friend

(15:03):
and somebody have known within the objective's world going back
to the mid nineteen nineties, so for a long time.
But Adam, says Curtisyovvin, I've seen better arguments from middle schools. Yeah,
but we need to rebuck them because it turns out
that entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley buy into these arguments. So,

(15:28):
I mean, I always think, yeah, this is stupid. I
don't need to rebuc rebute this. Well, maybe we do.
Maybe we should make the effort. Maybe we should not
assume assume that everybody just gets it the.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
Way some of us do.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Anyway, Adam, who have known since the nineties, been part
of the objectivist kind of community for since then and
has been on the show at least twice.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Maybe more than that, maybe three, three times.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Maybe Anyway, Adam just put out a letter, which I
think is an important letter. It's a letter resignation from
the heavy foundation he was. It turns out I didn't
know this, but he was a visiting fellow at the
Edward mess the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
at the Heritage Foundation, and he resigned, and so I

(16:13):
want to read parts of the letter.

Speaker 1 (16:15):
Now. I did not get a copy of the letter,
so but I assume it's okay that I'm reading it
because Adam allowed the letter to be published on Twitter.

Speaker 2 (16:25):
It was published by Ilia Ilia, which Ilio one of
the alias published at Ilia Shapiro. There's Ali Shapiro in
the ISLI so many which are and I get them
mixed up, and everybody gets them mixed up, which to
the show again. Anyway, It's a powerful letter resignation, so I.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
Thought it would be worth reading it out. This is
one more.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Resignation in a series of people leaving Heritage Foundation and
resigning over what it's happened over the last few weeks
that we've covered here regarding Heritage. I think it's it's
super important that good guys, that the good stand up
against evil, and in this case, Heritage is representing evil,
and stand up against it and quit, but also explain

(17:08):
why they quit. I've seen some people resigning from Heritage
without really saying why. So what I like about Adam,
what I like about this is Adam published the letter
and now it's made public and everybody can see exactly
why Adam has left Heritage Foundation.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
And I think that is important because it's.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
A mall stand, it's an intellectual stand, it's a philosophical stand,
and it is it is important.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
I'm going to read you from the letter.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
It basically is addressing all these things that we're talking
about in terms of what is going on on the
right and the evil in the evil on the right.
Somebody wants to make the point that Adam back Trump. Yes,
he did in spite of that. I mean he backed

(17:58):
Trump because of Israel. Well, I think he was on
my show and said that that the number one issue
for him was anti Semitism in Israel, and he begged
Trump because of that, and after October seventh, he didn't
see a choice. I understand that, as I said, the
fact that somebody voted for Trump, I get why some
people voted for Trump. And so yeah, anyway, here's Adam.

(18:24):
It is with heavy heart that I resigning my visiting
fellow position in the Edwin Metes the Third Center for
Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. My resignation
is effective immediately I get a skip because it's a
long letter. Unfortunately, October thirtieth video and your subsequent interviews, videos,
and commentary have made it clear to me that Heritage

(18:45):
is no longer the story think tank that I was
proud to join in twenty nineteen. Adam and I might
disagree about the story think tank, but that's not the point.

Speaker 1 (18:56):
He goes on.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
Y October thirtieth videos video indefensible. So were your purported
explanations and backtracking in subsequent interviews and social media posts.
The October thirtieth interview was worse than a poor choice
of words or mere mistake. It was a profound moral
inversion to use the language of ancient anti Semitic blood libel,

(19:21):
such as globalist class and venomous coalition. It was especially
lowsome to use this language to defend Tucker Calson. Tucker
is quickly following Candide's own down the very dark path
of Jewish conspiracy theories and defenses of Nazis. After a

(19:44):
Candas explanation, Tucker is quickly following candiss own down there,
oh sorry. After Candasa's explanation a couple of years ago
of Kristolnach as burning of communist books and not in
an attack on Jews.

Speaker 1 (19:57):
This was the final store for me, and my judgment
has been.

Speaker 2 (19:59):
Repeatedly con firmed by her ensuing years by her in
the ensuing years. Similar to canvases just asking questions strategy,
Tucker's increasingly hosting friendly head nodding in agreement interviews with
people who explicitly praise Nazis and are unrepentant in their
anti Semitic slurs of Jews in Israel, such as his

(20:21):
interview of Derelkoopa and Agapia the name I can't pronounce,
Tucker's friendly, smiling interview with Nick Foentis and avowed Nazi
who simply was simply then the deer of Tucker's increasing
number of friendly interviews.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
With nihilists and anti Semites.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
In all of these interviews, Tucker's blankantly refused to challenge
any of their calumnies, propaganda, and falsehoods, despite despite your
subsequent claim in a follow on X statement on October
thirty first, that we should quote challenge them head.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
On unquote and open debate.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
This bears emphasis emphasizing Taka has never challenged one of
these evil guests on his show For example, in a
two hour interview with Frantis, Teka never asked Fantis a
single question about his Nazi views or even his Nazi
slur of President of Vice President jd Vance as a
race trader, given jd Vance's marriage to Usha, to Usha

(21:27):
and they know Usha and their so called brown children,
to quote four inters, this is neither. This is neither
debate nor critical engagement with ideas with which we profoundly disagree.
This is toleration and or agreement with evil ideologies and ideas.
This is made even more clear by Taker's contrary treatment

(21:50):
of anyone he deemed to be a quote Zionist. Unlike
his interview with Frantis, Cooper and Agrapya and many others,
Taka engages and skeptical interviews with pointed, hart hitting questions
of Senator Ted Cruz and others about their Zionist of
pro Israel positions. All this makes it absolutely clear that
Taker gives credence. There's millions of viewers that evil ideologies, collectivism, nihilism,

(22:13):
and anti Semitism are consistent with conservatism and America First Movement.
Tucker's friendly and laughing conversation with fuantas signals there's millions
of young viewers that it is permissible to give a
pass to such evil, even in their best life possible.

Speaker 1 (22:29):
Tucker makes clear we at least, we at least should
tolerate such evil because, as you said in your October
thirtieth video, we should not be quote attacking our friends
on the right.

Speaker 2 (22:42):
This is a massive moral inversion. This is the opposite
of what Heritage Foundation you know, stood for over many
decades in America political discourse. It stands in the opposite
of the ideas of divining fathers in the Declaration of
Independence and Constitution, a neededble, natural rights, limited government, rule
of law, and free markets, and the flourishing society the results.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
In these ethical and political commitments.

Speaker 2 (23:08):
Although you told us in the town hall last Thursday
that you made a mistake in your October thirtieth video,
you have not retracted or withdrew on the video. It
remains on x on your ex account with more than
twenty four million views today. That's what it remains unclear
precisely and specifically what you regard as your moral mistake
and failure in leadership.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
This is compounded by the mixed messages that you have
been giving to us in the world.

Speaker 2 (23:35):
About the lessons you have learned, you have con continually reiterated,
for example, your claim in your October thirtieth video which
should not cancel a friends and NATTACKA always will be
a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
As far as I'm aware, you have not disavowed this claim.

Speaker 2 (23:52):
But you're falsely conflated here the struggle sessions and cancelation
campaigns that the woke left inflict on their apostates and
heretics with the proper, steadfast moral condemnation of nihilism, collectivism, Nazism,
and you. Adrid Aristotle observed in a seminal treaty on
ethics that in a choice between truth and friendship, it

(24:16):
is the truth that we must always give our primary allegiance.
Even with your missed messages mixed messages, one thing is
clear by your words and actions. Heritage is wedded to
Tucker and everything he has come to represent on the
periphery of the groper movement created by Fuentas. Instead of
the truth, you've chosen a false friend of the American

(24:36):
ideas that Heritage was supposed to represent. This in abstract,
this profound failing of truth and justice would give me
serious pause and would still I would still ultimately resign.
But it's even more pressing today to call out the
small failing and to take a stand.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
It is still shocking to me that the day is
the worst single day slaughter of Jews and the Holocaust.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
The invasion and attack of Israel in October seven, twenty
twenty three, was unleashed its tsunami violent anti semitism.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
This swept Europe.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
In the US in the past two years, woke brownshirts
have been screaming genocidal slogans in the streets on the
university campuses. They have been doing much worse than merely
screaming slogans like free Palestine and from the Rivers to
the Sea. They've acted in harassing and assault and assaulting
American Jews, fire bombing and vandalizing homes and businesses, and

(25:28):
murdering American Jews in DC, Colorado, and California.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
This has never happened before in the US.

Speaker 2 (25:35):
The nihilists and collectivist bigotry has driven woke leftists into
frenzied unseen, into frenzies unseen in the West since the
original now Nazi brown Shirts terrorized Jews in Germany in
the twenties and thirties and has now reared its ugly
head in the American political rights. Now is the time
to differentiate the right in the left, not to join
the left and embracing this toxic fusion of collectivism and

(25:58):
anti Semitism. He continues, You make clear your choice endorsement
and toleration of false friends of freedom, rights, liberty, and
the American ideals of defining father despite the awelliant claims
to the contrary that they are advocates of America.

Speaker 1 (26:20):
First to represent conservatism.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
Worse than false friends, they have proven to be advocates
of the evil ideologies that cheek to destroy these achievements
of Western civilization as represented by the United.

Speaker 1 (26:31):
States of America. I cannot stand by in silence. It
is time for choosing. I choose to resign, so.

Speaker 2 (26:40):
I think a powerful letter. I want to congratulate Adam
for doing this. It's not easy, although you know, given
given how bad things are, maybe it is easy. It's
not easy to leave a post. It's not easy to
stand up to your boss and to your peers. Uh,

(27:02):
it's not easy to make make this public and take
a moral stand in public in this way, Adam is is,
you know, in this in that world of think tanks
and and uh conservatives and small el libertarians we'll call it.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Uh. Uh, you know, think tanks in Washington, d C.
He's part of that world. Uh.

Speaker 2 (27:27):
And and he's taken their courageous stand here. And I
give him credit for that. Uh, I get him credit
for that. And I and I think he's absolutely right,
absolutely right in his diagnosis of heritage and coverent heritage
and uh and and and where it is heading and
uh and kind of the moral travesty of what Roberts did,

(27:49):
as we talked about on the show. So if you'd like,
if you'd like to read the letter, you can find
it on Twitter against again, Elio Shapiro published it, So
just look up earlier Shapiro.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
And you will find I think you will find the letter.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
It's worth reading if you know Adam, it's worth sending
out Adam congratulations for for for resigning from Heritage, even
though again I'm sure it was not an easy professional thing.
Oh maybe it was easy. Again, given the stakes for Adam,
it probably was easy, but again not not professionally not easy,

(28:28):
I'm sure. Okay, So yeah, I mean, this battle will continue.
It is great to having more people. It is important
to have more people join the fight. It's important to
call out the left and the right on on the

(28:48):
on on these kind of issues. I have said for
a long time, and and not everybody's gonna agree with
me that I think the right is. It's a large
extent the Lodger enemy, the enemy that I think warries me.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
More because.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
It is to some extent, you know, affiliated with where
we are and what we represent. So again I'm glad
to see I'm glad to see more people join this battle,
and we would be talking much more about this in
the weeks, months.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
And probably years to come. It's not going to get
any easier. It's not going to get any better. As
I say in Silicon Valley in San Francisco, it is spreading.
It is spreading, by the way. I hope to return
to that, to the to the Hamilton Society again, to
do more debates.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
I'm hoping to engage with them because I think engagement engagement.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
Again. You know, some of those views are.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
Horrific and really horrible, but the people who run the
Hamilton Society are not the people who actually presented those views.

Speaker 1 (29:59):
Those are some the people who attended to talk, and
you know they're religious.

Speaker 2 (30:06):
We disagree, but we need to have this conversation and
we need to be able to present rational ideas to
people who might be open to still changing their minds
about some of the really horrible positions that they have
and the damage Tucker is doing in our world that
Candice is doing, the Jdvans is doing that, Patrick Deneen

(30:30):
is doing, the JD Vance is doing.

Speaker 1 (30:33):
It really is unimaginable. It really is unimaginable.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Chandas says, Uran is the Devil, I don't think the
devil is the right terminology. I think the terminology these
days is Uran is the Antichrist. I think that is
the terminology that Peter teel Is is spreading. It's the
anti Christ. Okay, so that is That is Adam's letter

(31:01):
to Heritage, which I thought was worth reading to everybody.
I just want to add one thing it just because
I came across this as I was preparing the show.
Again from Techo Calson, just to keep you up to
speed about Tackle Causon. It turns out that in this
morning's newsletter, the tacko Colson published. He publishes I Guess,

(31:23):
a weekly newsletter. Tucker finally found people who he believes
are really, you know, really property call and compared to
the Nazis, it's not for wins, it's not candas. It's
actually Israelis, Israelis and Jews like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin.

(31:47):
He writes about them, These people are sick, you know.
He makes the argument that in the Old Testament, you know,
he makes an Old Testament argument about about the Jews, right,
the Jews, uh and uh about the Jewish, supposedly the

(32:10):
Jewish blood superiority.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
Right.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
He says, there's no such thing as blood superiority. I agree,
And then he says those who disagree, like the IDF's leaders,
he is really Defense Forces leaders have more in common
with ad of Eichmann than Jesus. So the idea of

(32:36):
leaders he has decided believe in blood superiority. I don't
know any idea fleetiers who believe that, he says, of
more common with Adam of Eichmann than Jesus. It's y,
you know, it's pretty sick. H Tucker CALLSI His is

(33:00):
really evil, sick, bad, horrific. All of the above, don't
have anything to do with him, and ideally.

Speaker 1 (33:13):
Don't subscribe, you know, don't have anything to do with him,
sanction him.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Oh by the way, Troy came in, Thank you Troy
with five hundred austrolion dollars. Thank you, Thank you Troy.
That is incredibly generous and very much appreciated. I know
we had some other stickers from Kim.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
I said that earlier, and I think you know there
was some there was ru downs, So thank you guys.
All right, let's look a little bit about housing, a
bunch of small stories about housing.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
But kind of that that struck me that there's a
post going around. I think it was published like two
or three days ago, yeah, November twelfth, so two days
ago it was published a post. It has a beautiful picture.
This is on Twitter. Beautiful picture of a house. It
looks like a pretty big house. This particular house.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
I think it's about three five hundred and fifty square feet.
It looks kind of.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
It's like what you considered a classic American two story.
There's an attic. They might be a basement, but in
a very lots of trees. Beautiful, beautiful house, right, I mean,
not my style architecture, but a big, distinguished house. And

(34:38):
the heading goes, an average working class man man could
buy this house in the nineteen fifties support four kids
and a state and a house and stay home wife. Today,
a two income household can't even buy eggs without going
into debt. What is what the eff is going on?

(35:00):
Many people on Twitter have pointed out, and this is
part of the dangers of Twitter, that this house in
the nineteen fifties would have required, you know, an income
that is probably in the top one percent. This is
far far off from an average working class a salary

(35:23):
could afford this house. An average working class salary in
the nineteen fifties. And the average house in the nineteen
fifties was about one thy twelve hundred square feet, so
about a third a third of the size of this house.
It was one story and pretty simple and pretty pretty bare,
pretty bare, not in this kind of neighborhood and certainly

(35:43):
not this kind of size and not kind of this prosperity.
And people since then have been posting photos making fun
of this.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
You know, somebody posted a photo of the white house,
you know, and said, in the nineteen seventies, a peanut
farmering to Jimmy Carter, you know, I could buy this house,
you know, with folk kids and stay at home mom
and everything.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
So a lot of people are making fun of this,
but I think it's important to note that. And we've
talked about this a lot on the show, and we'll
keep talking about it because it keeps going back. This
ridiculous nostalgia to some imagined nineteen fifties utopia is bizarre
and wrong and deceiving and dishonest, fundamentally dishonest. There was no,

(36:31):
you know, dream utopia in the nineteen fifties. The nineteen fifties,
people did not live better lives. They were not wealthier.
It's not true that you could afford all these wonderful
things on one salary that you can't today.

Speaker 1 (36:45):
Our standard living, quality of life.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
Our homes are cause our technology, our washing machines and
dryers and a conditioning and the million of the gadgets
that we have at home that didn't exist back then.
And just to share size of homes and plots of
land and everything so outstrip anything that was happening in
the nineteen fifties that it's just incomparable how much bad
a life is today, and yet both the left and

(37:09):
the right, for different reasons, harken back to the nineteen fifties,
as if there's some ideal. So no, no, I mean
this is this is a complete lie, and it's a
lie being constantly repeated and perpetrated.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Don't fall for it.

Speaker 2 (37:24):
And when you hear it, speak up against it, because
it's it's part of this idea of going backwards. And
I hope that one of the things I represent is
an anti stagnation perspective.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
You know.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
My perspective is if you don't grow, if you don't
move forward, then you go backwards. And growing backwards means
or going backwards doesn't make any sense. You stop going.
You actually, if you stop going, you start shrinking, and
shrinking means death. Shrinking means approaching death. So life requires growth,
Life requires forward forward progress, Life requires ambition into the future.

(38:05):
And UH and and these kind of pictures and memes
and and ideas are destructive to that ambition and moving forward.
This veneration of a past, UH is just pathetic and ridiculous.
Talk about pathetic and ridiculous and housing A JD. Vans
in an interview I think yesterday, UH said the following

(38:27):
and and and we've talked about the fact that housing prices,
particularly on the coast, I expended it. Housing prices have
gone up significantly, although again the extent to which they've
gone up, to the extent of which housing is unaffordable,
to the extent of which young people can afford houses,
is vastly and horrifically exaggerated by.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
Both left, Mom, Donnie, and right everybody in the right,
you know, the the.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
The victim and grievance grievance mentality is now shared by
left and right and both you know, aggressively pitching grievances.
And one of the big grievances is housing. Anyway, jade
Van's responding to that, says, said this, a lot of

(39:15):
young people are saying housing is way too expensive.

Speaker 1 (39:18):
Why is that because we flooded the country with thirty
million illegal immigrants who were taking.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
Houses they that ought that ought by right to go
to American citizens.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Now, there's so much wrong with this.

Speaker 2 (39:37):
I mean, again, this is straight out of the kind
of leftist zero sum world perspective. Now, thirty million illegals,
where do you get that number? That's a vastly exaggerated number.
But this is the guy who talked about Haitian immigrants
eating cats in Ohio or wherever it was.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
So he is not He lies strategically. He knows exactly
what he's doing, and he knows exactly where to exaggerate,
where to make up stuff and repeated, repeated, repeat it,
and then people start believing it and just becomes part
of our culture. So there were no thirty million illegal immigrants.
And I thought these illegal immigrants were destitute. I thought

(40:21):
they were coming here and sucking on the tits of
the state. They were welfare recipients, they had nothing. How
did these guys get loans? How did they get a mortgage?
Or did they afford the incredibly high prices?

Speaker 2 (40:35):
A bogus And if homes are unaffordable to Americans I've
lived in the United States and who have jobs and
are llegal in the United States, how are these houses
affordable to illegal immigrants? I don't understand that. You know,
that makes absolutely no sense to me, right, that somehow
these houses are.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
Affordable to illegal immigrants.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
But even if it was the case that we had
a large immigration into the country, and let's assume that
these immigrants are hard working, they're making money, so they can.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
Afford a house. Then the reason house prices are going
up is not because of this massive immigration coming in.
It's because we're not building homes fast enough in order
to fulfill. Then you demand why isn't a response we
should have built more houses? And what about this idea
of taking houses that ought by right to go to

(41:32):
American citizens? I mean, I know the left believes that.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
You have a right to basic income and a right
to food, and right to healthcare, and right to education,
and maybe even a right to housing. Now it turns
out that Jadvans believes that Americans have a right to
housing by right. Homes and our fixed pot that the
government allocates by right to the deserving class, and the

(41:59):
deserving class people who have I don't know, American ancestral blood.
Maybe we should allocate houses based on how many generations
have been in America. Maybe that's how we should allocate houses,
not by price because they're expensive, but just by if
you can, if your ancestors fought in the Civil War,
get house. A War of Independence, you get two houses

(42:21):
World War two, maybe half of ours.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (42:26):
So the more ancient your bloodline, the bigger a house
you get something like that. I mean Jdvans repeatedly engages
in collectivistic, zero sum central planning thinking. And one of
my goals over the next three years is going to

(42:47):
be to do everything that I can to discredit JD
events now so that he does not become the Republican
nominee in twenty twenty eight. Now, I try to do
that which Trump didn't work but postially because I thought
that September that January sixth would finish Trump off and
it didn't.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
But here we have a specific target, Jady Vance.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
I want to make sure that this guy is so discredited,
at least by people who listen to my show, that
he is not the nominee. And to do that, we'll
talk about Jade Vance, We'll talk about Tacker, Calson and
four Inches, because I think they're all related, and clearly
he is the candidate of Taker, Calsa and the good Friends.
But I don't think I have any influence, but to
the extent that I have influenced, I'm hoping that we

(43:32):
don't get to a position in twenty twenty eight where
a bunch of you and a bunch of other objectives
think that Jadvans is the best candidate out there, and
that objectives should support him because by then, hopefully we
have discredited enough shown how collectivistic, zero sum central planning
he is and how culturally horrific he is in terms

(43:54):
of views.

Speaker 1 (43:55):
That that won't even be an option.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
Right. Somebody says the nineteen fifties when aberration in American
history and was never the norm. No, I don't think
that nineteen fifties went aberration, but they weren't that great.
I mean, people forget that in the early nineteen fifties,
many many families had to double up in homes. You know,

(44:22):
veterans came back from World War Two, and it took
them a while to get up on their feet and
to get good jobs and to you know, and the
Gibo made it possible for them to go get an education.
But then they had to start from somewhere, and they
started from nothing. In the economy had to recover from
the horrors of the Great Depression in the World War.
So the nineteen fifties were a period of struggle and

(44:43):
a period of much difficulty. And yes, the economy did very,
very well because it was it had been deregulated in
the late nineteen forties and the Federal Reserve did a
decent job of not inflating the economy. And it did okay,
it did well, but it wasn't like whoa nineteen fifties amazing, stunning,
It wasn't.

Speaker 1 (45:04):
It wasn't that great. Okay.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Finally a piece of good news also about housing, which
is interesting, and that is that the Institute for Justice
Interest for Justice, which is.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
A free market pro American you know.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
Firm, that legal firm that that basically sues the government
over violations of individual rights, is now suing the government
and hopes to take this case to the Supreme Court.
It's suing the government aren't about rent control, So it
is a lawsuit that that is, you know, suing this

(45:45):
idea of rent control as a taking as a constitutional
violation of the takings clause. Now they're only they're doing
it on a limited basis. That is, they're not challenging all.

Speaker 1 (45:57):
Rent control schemes because they're not sure they could win that.
They're hoping to win this one.

Speaker 2 (46:03):
Again, a lot of these legal institutions like Spacific Legal
Foundation and IJ view this as incremental. You get good
rulings that overturned bad laws and then you expand that
here they're looking at apartments that are basically sitting vacant
because rank control would allow them to charge rent that

(46:25):
is so low, only charge rent that is so low
that it doesn't make any sense for these people to
actually rent the apartment out.

Speaker 1 (46:33):
Is an example. This is an apartment in Manhattan.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
It contains two bedrooms, and the legal rent is set
at seven hundred dollars a month. Can you imagine that
in Manhattan seven hundred dollars a month with two bedrooms.
The apartment became vacant in twenty nineteen after a long
term tenancy. The last tenant was in the apartment for
over forty years, vacant ever since, because it simply doesn't

(47:03):
make sense for this company who owns the apartment to
rent department out for seven hundred dollars a month. According
to the law, they have to renovate this apartment. They
have to bring it up to code, they have to
upgrade furnishings, and not to luxury, just at the basic
level that the regulations demand. That would cost so much
money that they would never recoup the investment for seven

(47:23):
hundred dollars a month, So they would rather just let
it sit there empty than make the investment to bring
it up to code. Now, the argument is that by
limiting their ability to rent it at a higher rate,
the government is basically violating the taking clause of the Constitution. Now,

(47:44):
supposedly Justice Thomas, at least in an opinion that he
wrote a few years ago, gave an opening to challenging
the whole idea of in control from a constitutional basis.
And IJ is filing this lawsuit with the idea of
taking it to the Supreme Court and hoping to at
least overrule some aspects of rent.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
Control, which would be amazing.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
I mean, some of the best things happening in the
world today are the things that Instant the organizations like
IJ and Pacific lead the Foundation are doing. They are
fighting in the courts for more freedom. They are being,
you know, quite successful, and some of the best news
that we have in terms of liberty and freedom comes

(48:30):
from these lawsuits that they are bringing. So congratulations to
IJ for being in this lawsuit, and we'll follow it
and hope that they win in the Supreme Court and
we get to over turn at least a portion of
rent control, and that maybe will set up the stage
for doing a word and control completely. Finally, that would

(48:54):
be pretty amazing. All right, let's see where we want
to talk about.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
That's housing. Oh yeah, more good news. This good news
is on the tariff front.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
Donald Trump and his administration which have for months and
months and months and months now told us over and
over and over again, the towers do not raise prices.
That indeed, tawots are being paid by foreign manufacturers. I've
changed their minds, it turns out, according to them. Then,

(49:28):
in spite of the fact that tariffs don't raise prices,
if you eliminate tariffs, prices go down.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
That's miraculous. Hard to imagine, hort to understand how that works,
but how to believe anyway.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
In an executive order this afternoon, this Friday, Donald Trump
is slash towse slash towers on a number agricultural products.
Impudding impart to say, these are all tariffs that he
put in place, so he slashed his own tafts. These
are not ancient tabs tariffs that he put He has
slashed them in an effort, explosive effort to bring down

(50:14):
the cost of grocery prices.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
Now, I know many of you complained that I did
not believe in.

Speaker 2 (50:19):
The tariffs that tariffs were just aimed at at. They
didn't raise prices because fawn has paid them. Even Donald
Trump now understands that tarifts raised prices stunning So, uh yeah,
if you want to buy oranges, or tomatoes, or bananas,

(50:42):
or much more importantly, if you want to buy coffee
or cocoa, chocolate and tea, prices are going to go
down because tariffs have just been slashed on all those products.

Speaker 1 (50:56):
Also, beef inputs.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Have been tariffs have been slashed, as well as spices
and even some fertilizers.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Wow, I mean, I know. This has a lot to
do with poll numbers.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
That suggest that Americans are very upset about the cost
of living, and the cost of living has gone up
over the last year to large extent because of tariffs,
which we I know, the economists, who can't predict anything,
we have told you over and over and over again,
will raise prices.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
They have to. They have, and even the Trump administration
out recognizes that and to remedy that they're cutting tariffs.
This is great news. I suggest that Trump go all in.
This is his great opportunity to change his mind and
to actually lower dramatically the cost of living in the
United States. How about zero tariffs on everything?

Speaker 2 (51:53):
Be a revolutionary Trump, be a real radical none of
us wishy washy stuff, not just on bananas. Cut tariffs
on steel and aluminum and automobiles and everything everything.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Make it zero. You want to make America great again,
That's how you do it. Liberate us, move us towards freedom,
that's how you do it. So yeah, good news. Prices
are going to come down. Your coffee should cost less

(52:33):
very very soon.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
So excited about the fact that the Trump administration is
learning maybe a little lesson maybe the e stapolated more
broadly about tariffs and actually.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
Coming to realize that this is.

Speaker 2 (52:51):
Yeah, I mean that even as of also Friday, the
Trump reiversation also announced that those tariffs that they had
on Switzerland. You remember they put like fifty percent tariffs
on Switzerland on watchers and chocolate and stuff like that,
it turns out that they are now easing easing. I

(53:12):
don't know what easing means and how much they're easing,
but the punishing levees on imports from Switzerland they're going
to be dramatically lower. So yeah, it's it's getting to
the point where.

Speaker 1 (53:29):
Maybe you know the tariff issue is slowly being the
impact of it is slowly being reduced. I will say
today I spoke at Leadishipport and the Rockies, which I
speak at every year, and I and both the speaker
before me and me both attacked Trump's tariffs in front
of a group of that usually really resents challenging Trump

(53:51):
on anything, and they have spoted pretty well. So I
think the tide has.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
Shifted in terms of public opinion about tariffs, and maybe
this is one battle where reason and rationality is winning
at least a little bit. All right, let me let
me just see what do we We're going to talk
about those three items, Okay, one more lengthy one and

(54:16):
one short ones. I want to talk a little bit
about the Philibesta, which is being on really on people's
minds with the with the government shutdown and the idea
you needed sixty votes in order to pass this this
continuing resolution. Why sixty why not just fifty one? Why
do we need this special thing in the Philibusta? And

(54:38):
some people claiming, oh, it's in the constitution, which.

Speaker 1 (54:40):
Is not so.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
I want to talk a little bit of a philibusta's
arugument for it and arguments against it. Give you a
little bit of history of where it comes from. Uh
and and and give you a little sense of what
this is about. So the philibesta was really born in
eighteen oh six. It was in the early Senate, right
at the beginning of the Republic. You know, a simple

(55:03):
majority could cut off debate using a rule called previous
question motion. It's a tool that the House has, and
so at some point you're debating and debating and debating
and debating.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
And okay, enough, we have to vote.

Speaker 2 (55:15):
In eighteen oh six, of the recommendation of Vice President
Aaron Burr, the Senate removed this motion as part of
a kind of cleaning up the rules. As unintended consequences,
they created the filibuster. The filibuster at the time mean
that people could continue debating the issue indefinitely and hold
up a vote indefinitely, as long as you kept debating,

(55:38):
as long as you kept speaking, and there was no
formal mechanism to end debate. And indeed, the first filibusters
started in the eighteen thirties and eighteen forties, and suddenly
people realized, well, unlimited debate was possible, and we'll never
get to vote on this if they keep talking. So

(56:01):
the filibuster was born out of neglect, out of unintended
consequences of a slight change of a rule.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
They didn't really know.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
What happened in philibuster is the idea that you could
continue talking, you continue debating one or several senators, and
you can continue doing this so the vote never comes
to the floor, you know, And there were examples where
this worked. In nineteen forty one, Henry Clay's attempt to
create a national bank was blocked by philibuster. In the
late eighteen hundreds, filibusters increased, often used around civil rights

(56:34):
issues in patronage battles, but they were still rare. The
Senate met less frequently. There wasn't a lot to vote on,
and mostly they just voted, and you know, the people
didn't filibuster that many issues. In nineteen during World War One,

(56:55):
a group of Isolation senators filibuster the bill that would
have armed merchant ships. President Wilson demanded reform. He thought
this was unacceptable, and so they introduced what was called.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
The cloture rule. And this was a rule that said
that you could cut off debate if two thirds of
the Senate voted to cut the debate off. If two
thirds voted, the debate was cut and they would the
issue would go to a vote right. In the thirties through.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
The nineteen sixties, filibusters became associate with blocking civil rights legislation. Suddenly,
Democrats used it to filibuster to prevent anti lynching bills,
voting protections, and other civil rights measures. There was even
the longest single individual filibuster of the period was Storm
Thurman in nineteen fifty seven, where he spoke straight for

(57:48):
twenty four hours eighteen minutes against the Civil Rights Act
of nineteen fifty seven, and then in nineteen sixty four
there was a sixty day filibuster where they tried to
derail the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, but
ultimately closure two thirds vote was invoked and enough Senators
voted to actually go ahead and vote on a civil

(58:08):
rights Act. In nineteen seventy five, there was a decision
made that two thirds was too rigorous of standard, and
it was lowered to sixty votes, two fifths of the
full Senate. They also created a two track system where
you could debate on one bill could continue even if
it's being filibustered while the Senate moved on to other

(58:29):
business right.

Speaker 1 (58:31):
And this is what the modern filibuster is. It no
longer requires you to non stop talking.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
All you have to do really is to threaten a
filibuster that if it comes to vote, you won't let
it because you'll start talking, and that forces a closure vote.
And unless you have sixty votes to force a vote,
you don't even bring a bill to the floor to
be voted on. And that's where we are today. Where
we are today is that the philibuster does become a

(59:00):
standard tool for the minority party to stop anything the
majority wants to pass.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
All they have to do is threaten filibusta.

Speaker 2 (59:09):
Sometimes they do speeches, but mostly they just threaten it,
and then you have to have sixty votes and that's it.

Speaker 1 (59:16):
That's just accepted normal. Now this has been eroded a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
In twenty thirteen, Democrats ended the filibuster for executive branch
nominees and lower court federal judges, be the Supreme courts
still required sixty votes. In twenty seventeen, Republicans ended the
filibustera to the Supreme Court nominees, so it only needs
fifty one vote, and they did that in order to
get Neil Gosich elected.

Speaker 1 (59:45):
He wasn't going to get sixty.

Speaker 2 (59:48):
So now all presidential nominees only need fifty one, but
almost all other legislation, with the exception of budget reconciliation
we will leave that for another time, need sixty votes
in order to basically pass. Again, not in the constitution,
but a part of the way things run. Now here's

(01:00:10):
the thing. What this does is it gives the minority
party vita power if it can stick together. We show
that it couldn't. The Democrats couldn't stick together with regard
to the government shutdown. But if they can stick together,
they can block. If they have if they have forty
one votes, they can block what the majority wants to do.

(01:00:33):
So it protects the minority rights in the Senate. That's
part of the positive. It encourages an attempt for bipartisanship
and it prevents big major swings in the law for
good or for ill. I think the main thing that
it does that I like is to slows things down.

(01:00:56):
It forces thought, it forces consideration, forces their empt to
try to get people from the other party to vote
for it, and it doesn't allow for big ideological swings.

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
But of course that's also a problem. You know, it
gives the.

Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
Minority exaggerated power. We already have a system of checks
and balances. This adds on to that another check and balance,
and it gives the video policy you have to have
sixty votes in the Senate to do anything. It paralyzes
Congress in the end. At the Senate level, the House
doesn't have anything like this. And it said vises good luck,

(01:01:35):
which I'm for generally good luck and partisanship, you know,
which I'm against tribalism. And this is the problem that
when you want to do good things, it slows them
down and stops them.

Speaker 1 (01:01:54):
It makes it impossible.

Speaker 2 (01:01:55):
So, for example, if today on energy for example, or
environmental regulation, the administration would like to pass bills in
the Senate they would actually dramatically reduce regulation of environment
and actually liberalize economy and really make dramatic changes in
the world in which we live. It can't do it
without getting significant democratic vote votes, and we know the

(01:02:18):
significant of democratic votes are not forthcoming. So change for
the positive is basically halted.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
It stopped now. It also prevents a lot of bad
stuff from happening. Who knows what this administration would like
to pass in terms of voting, in terms of you know,
election rules, in terms of immigration, in terms of a
lot of other things that I think are dangerous and problematic.

(01:02:47):
And what if the Democrats, as when they at Obama
had the White House, the Senate, and the House, they
could have passed all kinds of things socialized healthcare and
Medicare for all with just fifty one votes. So I
have to admit torn I'd like the good legislation to
only require fifty one votes and the bad legislation require sixty.

(01:03:09):
I'd like to slow down any negative bad legislation. On
the other hand, people should get what they vote for,
and if people vote for.

Speaker 2 (01:03:22):
For political power, for political party to have the House
of Senate, to end the White House, maybe they should
be allowed a free fall to pass whatever they can pass.
So I'm tone, I'm not, you know, I don't fall
clearly on one side of the other. It's frustrating when
there's some good bills they never pass. For example, I
think they're going to be some bills on the table

(01:03:45):
which expand dramatically expand health saving accounts, which I think
would be really good. I don't think it can pass
the Senate because I'm not sure they can get the Democratic.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
Votes to get it passed. It would be great to
pass that on fifty one votes. Environmental deregulations, some of
the some of the energy regulations that we want to
permanently get rid of, which would be really, really good.
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Right now, I'm not sure certainly this administration cannot get
Democratic votes for it. We're in a position where Democrats
can't get Republicans to vote with them, and Republicans can't
get Democrats to vote for them, you know, except when
it's for expanding government and then and then the parties
come together.

Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
But for shrinking government, you can't get the parties together.
So it is, it is a quandary. I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
I don't come down clearly on one side of the other.
As I've always said, I like gridlock because I worry
that almost every any administration, including this one, is going
to pass more bad things and good things, more bad
things and good things. And it's a shame that we

(01:04:58):
don't get the good things, but it's good we don't
get the bad things. So I'm mildly pro filibuster, but
I'm also you know, people voted.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
For all this bad stuff. Let him have it, just
like the tariffs. They got the tariffs. Now they're holding
the back.

Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
You know, suffer the consequences of your actions. Voting matters,
you know. The best way to prevent this is is
a kind of divided government. But of course, if you
have divided government, it's like a filibuster. You're never going
to get the good legislation. So sadly, in the world
in which we live, there's no way to get the
good stuff without getting the bad stuff as well, and

(01:05:40):
filibuster is an example of that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
If you do away with it, you get both. If
you don't do away with it, you don't get the
good stuff. So I'm torn.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
It's not clear to me which side is better, but
generally I tend towards, you know, divided governments and not
getting a lot done, because I worry about the downside
more than about losing out on the upside. In the
case of politics. In every other aspect of life that's
not the case. So I'm probably still for the filibuster

(01:06:12):
in spite of the fact that a lot of things
that I'd like to pass are not going to pass.
All right, Two quick stories, and then I'll go to
your questions. I know we've got a lot of questions,
and I do have a hard stops. If because of
the hard stop, I have to delay some questions the
next show, I apologize, but I'll I'll do the questions
in the next show. I answer all questions. I won't

(01:06:34):
lose them. Don't worry all right quickly. Jeffrey Epstein Epstein,
This is still ongoing right now. Congress is going to
vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein's content. There's a majority, I
think it now's a representative for this to pass. There's

(01:06:55):
probably a majority in the center for this to pass.
The Democrats will vote for it, and a number of
Tobeicans and actually a significant amou of Republicans will probably
vote for it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
Trump tried to stop it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
He tried to convince law and Bob It, the congresswoman
from Colorado, to vote against releasing the Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 1 (01:07:13):
It didn't go well. She insisted on voting for it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
So there was a there was a procedural vote in
the House to allow us to come to a vote.
And it's going to come to a vote, and yeah,
expect to see a lot of Jeffrey Epstein files hitting
the news. Of course, some Epstein files have already been released.
They raise even more suspicions about Trump's relationship with Epstein.

(01:07:41):
Nothing is clear, nothing is obvious, but they just just
the language of them and the way they're phrased. These
emails that Jeffrey Epstein wrote about Trump suggest that maybe
Trump was more involved in what Jeffy Epstein was doing
with young girls than would be we would believe, we
were led to believe. Also, Maga seems to be shifting

(01:08:05):
in positions from pedophelia to well, maybe having sex with
teenage girls is not pedophelia. Maybe that suggests that there's
a lot more about what Trump was doing than anybody
wants to admit. Anyway, Trump is responding to this by
being very defensive, as he always is, and by going
in the attack, which he always does. So Trump has

(01:08:28):
basically told the Department of Justice to start probing the
relationship between Epstein and Epstein and Bill Killington, so go
after democrats. So basically, Trump's viewers, if Jeffrey Epstein is
going to bring me down, he's going to bring down
a bunch of Democrats as well.

Speaker 1 (01:08:48):
So I'm all for this.

Speaker 2 (01:08:50):
Let's get them all out. Let's get it all out
in the open. Let's release everything. I don't understand what
hasn't been released already. Let's release everything. Let's figure out
who did what and when and if that means ending
the political careers of a bunch of people, Democrats, Republicans, whatever, Fine,
I mean, I'm all for that.

Speaker 1 (01:09:10):
Yeah, let's get it out there. Let's get it all
out there.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
It's sad that Trump is saying go after Clinton rather
than just you don't go after anybody who deserves to
go after given the facts.

Speaker 1 (01:09:23):
That's not how Trump operates.

Speaker 2 (01:09:26):
But we will get a lot more Jeffrey Epstein emails
and stuff. And it does turn out, just by the
emails that already be released, that a lot of the
rich and powerful people who politicians and businessmen who were
associated with Jeffrey Epstein did not count to what they say,

(01:09:46):
did not disengage from him, even after the allegations about
his activities his Peterphelly activities became public. So this continued,
and uh, yeah, I mean, there's still a story there.
And it does look like we'll know more because Congress

(01:10:07):
is going to force the release of these files and
if Trump is if it's a problem for Trump, It'll
be interesting to see how Maga responses, because Maggot's pushing
for the release of the files. But then if they
come back as as Trump was did bad stuff, what
are they gonna do?

Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
Are they gonna turn against Trump or not.

Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
Finally, just to just to point out that because I
did say in a past show, I think that the
gerald Ford aircraft carrier UH was was delayed in arriving
at the Caribbean, and maybe Trump was backing off going
to war with Venezuela and going to war with the cartels.
It turns out that no, it's now in the southern Caribbean.

(01:10:51):
It has joined the other forces in this in the Caribbean,
it is off the shows of Venezuela. This is the
largest if this is the largest aircraft carrier in the
American fleet, the largest aircraft carrier in the world.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
I think, incredibly powerful war machine.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
I think this is just an increased pressure on Maduro
and to try to get him out of Venezuela, to
get regime changed without a war. But it is also
an indication that America is willing to go I guess
to violent action. The US is continuing to blow ships
out of the water for who knows what reason, killing

(01:11:31):
people without any trial, without jury, without any kind of
legal framework to justify it, without a declaration of war,
without anything.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
Really, it's truly astounding that.

Speaker 2 (01:11:41):
This is allowed to continue, that nobody is outraged by
the fact that the United States is just killing people
in the Caribbean Sea through the discretion of I guess
military commanders.

Speaker 1 (01:11:53):
And you know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
And now there are murmurs of we're going to launch
at tax inside Mexico, We're going to go after cartels
wherever they are, which I think is just just horrific.
I mean, the solution of the drug war or the
drugs is not war with the cartels. The solution of
the drugs again is to legalize them and let local
law enforcement take care of them. And if the United

(01:12:17):
States can help local law enforcement contain the violence.

Speaker 1 (01:12:21):
Then so be it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
But get rid of the violence in the United States.
It is not through a war in Mexico and the
rest of.

Speaker 1 (01:12:31):
The Latin America.

Speaker 2 (01:12:33):
That will be a topic we will be discussing more
as developments in the Caribbean Sea. As things develop in
the Caribbean Sea, all right, let's let's not send to
your questions, you know, so we've got quite a few questions,

(01:12:54):
so that is in use for fighting November fourteenth.

Speaker 1 (01:12:57):
Again, thank you for joining me. Thank you for all the.

Speaker 2 (01:12:59):
People who did stickers, primarily Troy who did five hundred
Australian dollars.

Speaker 1 (01:13:04):
Think you think you?

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
Thank you, Thanks so Jack for a sticker, and thank
you John for the sticker, and thank you to all
the other sticker providers that can think before.

Speaker 1 (01:13:11):
Normative randroid as well. I don't think I think that before,
but especially as I said to Troy, we got a
lot of twenty dollars questions, so we're going to start
with those and then with over time we have left,
we'll do the five to ten dollars questions and if
there's anything left after that, I have a hard stop
in forty five minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
We will take them up on the next show, which
will be on Sunday. We'll do a show on Sunday
and we'll cover those all, right, nanjavij algithm. Psychopaths a
very small and number in modern society. But during the
Dark Ages, wasn't most everyone a psychopath? People slaughtered each

(01:13:52):
other on the regular with no remorse zero Some thinking
turns us into monsters. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
what psychopaths exactly means. I mean, to be a psychopath,
I think is a clinical psychological diagnosis. I don't think
slaughtering and murdering people in the makes you a psychopath.
But I don't know it's a psychological term. I'm not

(01:14:14):
a psychologist. I don't like the diagnosed people with those
kind of things. It is true that in modern times, killing, slaughtering, raping,
pillaging is pretty much unaccepted in civilized society. Now, note
that there are plenty of people at our universities who
believe that killing, raping, burning people alive, torturing them is

(01:14:39):
completely okay if you're the so called oppressed. If you're
a Palestinian and the people you are killing are you know,
Israeli is a Jews. So even in a civilized society,
while people might not do it the things, they are
willing to support them.

Speaker 1 (01:15:01):
Because of an ideology.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
Now, and note that these Palestinians, the Gazans who did
this were behaving like Middle Ages Europeans. So the number
of people engaging in slaughter, the number of people willing
to engage in slaughter. The number of people capable of
great pillage and slaughter is dependent on the state of civilization.

Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
The more civilized the place, the less the fewer people
they are who are willing to kill, the more barbarica place.
And and here barbarism and civilization has more to do
with the ideas than anything else, the less slaughter there is.
I mean, there's the book Better.

Speaker 2 (01:15:49):
Better, Angels of Our Nature about by Stephen Pinka about
the level of violence and society over time, and he
shows quite dramatically how over time violence has declined dramatically
in the Western world as we became more civilized, which
means as we gain more respect for reason and for

(01:16:10):
individualism and for the sanctity of life. And that when
we were mystics and collectivists and tribalists, violence was all
the rage. I don't like labeling it a psychological issue
rather than a philosophical one.

Speaker 1 (01:16:25):
Ideas shape human behavior at the end of the day.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
When we embrace barbaric ideas, we become barbarians. When we
embrace civilized ideas, we become civilized. I mean, it's not
quite that simple, but that's a principle. Ian great performance
at the web debate and good for doctor web debate.

Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
That was my debate.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
That was a debate yesterday as human socialism and capitalism,
and good for doctor Mossov. Do you know if doctor
Marsov regrets his support for Trump in twenty twenty four election.

Speaker 1 (01:17:01):
I don't know. I haven't talked to him, but I
don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
I think he still views he still views Kamala as
a worst choice, particularly on the issue that swayed him,
which was the issue of Israel, you know, and then
maybe there are other issues in which also supported his
support for Trump. But next time we have Adam on
the show, we can certainly ask him about that, or

(01:17:25):
you can ask him about that.

Speaker 1 (01:17:27):
But I don't think. I don't think he regrets it.
And if that's not true, then he will come on
the show and tell us otherwise.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
Peb says, I was honored to have m Thatcher, Margaret
Thatcher speak at my nineteen ninety six commencement. Cool She
spoke on China, the West and capitalism, saying it would
bring democracy to China.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
By voting with dollars. She was right or was she right?
And what was she missing? Well, what she was missing
I think was the.

Speaker 2 (01:18:00):
Was the willingness of the Chinese regime to engage in
self preservation, which I think was what happened with she
in the mid twenty teens, where he clamped down on
economic freedom in order to preserve the authoritary nature of
the regime. She was one of the reasons he did
that was because she was right, was because that the

(01:18:21):
free markets were moving Chinese to demand more political freedom.
You saw that in the post COVID era as well,
with the demonstrations against the shutdowns, the lockdowns. I don't
think she saw the willingness of Chinese government to continue that. Also,
I think she overestimated the power of capital, of I

(01:18:43):
don't know what you call it, of markets free of
real philosophical ideas. To actually liberate liberate the people, the
Chinese are going to have to fight for their freedom.
They're going to have to fight for their liberty. I
truly believe that one there will be another Tannerman Square
and the Chinese people will have to fight back. And

(01:19:05):
to do that, they're gonna have to believe in liberty
and freedom.

Speaker 1 (01:19:09):
To do that, they're gonna have to be armed with
real ideas, not just I want to make more money
and not that that's bad. Right, wanted to make more
money is good. They need to.

Speaker 2 (01:19:21):
Understand the relationship between political freedom and economic freedom, and
they need to demand political freedom and they need to
be willing to fight back for it. They want a
Tennerman Square. I mean, they showed incredibly courage. Once the
shooting started, they were gone. And partially of it is
because of the overwhelming force. It has to be the
case that elements within the military will stand up to

(01:19:44):
the regime and support the protesters or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
So I think she will be right.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
In the very long term, or China will descend into poverty,
into tlitarianism again.

Speaker 1 (01:19:59):
I think that the.

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
Attempt to balance economic freedom with authoritarian regime is not.

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
Sustainable even either move towards more freedom or towards significant
less freedom. And right now we're moving towards less freedom.
Whether that is the path or whether that is going
to change.

Speaker 2 (01:20:15):
I mean, you know, a lot of people said, and
I said, Tom, I show that there was a possibility
that she was out and in October when the Communist
Party meets, they might kick him out. That did not happen.
She has only consolidated his power further. Does not bode well,
for at least the short medium term for China Harper Campbell,

(01:20:38):
while Ma'm donnie one on the same ballot, measures were
passed deregulating housing development in New York City. Will the
future of the mixed economy be greater deregulation while simultaneously
growing welfare systems? Well, here's the thing that is not
very much reported. Mam Donny supported the deregulation. That is,
mum Donny supported leading housing. He ran on a platform

(01:21:02):
that both encouraged rent control and at the same time
encouraged deregulation the building of housing, so greater housing supply.
He is, you know, supposedly part of the YIMBI, you know, yes,
in my backyard, kind of the pro pro housing growth
part of the left.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
But I do think that's true.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
I mean, if you look at the Danish model, the
Nordic model that they admire so much that the left
today thinks is the ultimate model, that model is basically
a model of less regulation, significantly deregulation, and much more
or much more efficient effective depending on you know, effective

(01:21:44):
for the goal, right, not effective in a big scheme
of things, but welfare state, So yes, I expect more
redistribution and potentially less regulation. Particularly when it comes to housing.
There seems to be a consensus building that housing needs
to be deregulated, and even the left, even the socialist left.

(01:22:07):
The guy I debated yesterday was very very pro deregulating housing,
you know, and and and and some of the new
housing should be built by the state, but some of
it should be private industry. And but deregulation was the
theme housing, not I don't know anything else, Andrew. Do

(01:22:29):
you think Tuka has a massive inferiority complex. He's often
concerned the Jews don't see themselves as better than him.

Speaker 1 (01:22:37):
Why does he care? Rand did imply that too, He's
evil flowed from feeling of inferiority. Look, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:45):
I don't like to to be psychological motivations because I'm
not a psychologist. I've said I've told you this many times, Andrew,
So I don't know. I mean, Tucker comes from a
wealthy family. He very much has a almost as acratic bearing,
an aristocratic perspective.

Speaker 1 (01:23:03):
He really considers himself better than everybody else. I think
that he is offended by the fact the Jews, of
all people, are maybe in some cases, most successful, richer
and have entered that part of society which they used
to be banned.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
From in the early part of the twentieth century and
nineteenth century. But I don't know what ultimately drives it.
There's no question I think that much adoption of evil
ideas is driven by lack of self esteem.

Speaker 1 (01:23:34):
But look, at the end of the day, it's lack
of thinking. It is evasion.

Speaker 2 (01:23:38):
I don't know the psychological motivation for that, usually inferiority
or lack of self esteem, but I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:23:47):
It just could be a choice.

Speaker 2 (01:23:52):
It could be a certain tradition, it could be I
don't know what he is adopting, but it's very well
could be lack of self esteem. Adam says, I never
heard you mention that the current state of US culture
is a manifest consequence of the mass disminding of young
Americans under the worst anti philosophy of education.

Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
Have I missed something now? I think I say it
all the time, I talk about it all the time,
that you know, the.

Speaker 2 (01:24:20):
State of American culture, the state of American youth is
a consequence of the fact that they've been taught to
emote and not to think. Now, that's disminding. That's exactly
the essence of what disminding is. I don't use that term.
Diminding is not a term in my vocabulary. It's in yours, Atam,
and you brought it up many times on the show.

Speaker 1 (01:24:38):
But I do emphasize over and over and over again
that what the American educational system, progressive education in particular,
but generally the American educational system does is it emphasizes emotion,
it emphasizes socialization, and de emphasizes thinking and thinking skills.
And that is the consequence of that is the anti

(01:25:03):
conceptual mentality that is dominant both the left and the
right today, the unthinking ideologies and.

Speaker 2 (01:25:11):
Therefore the unthinking, mal educated people around us attracted to them.
All Right, it looks like Lincoln has submitted a full
part question, So let's read through this and see any
advice on someone in undergraduate trying to go to the

(01:25:33):
intellectual public policy academic route throughout career wise. I initially
assumed I'd go into into finance, but fixing the garbage
in that universe in the universities and think tanks is needed.

Speaker 1 (01:25:51):
For reference, I don't know what that means. Lincoln, of course,
it's needed, But what has that to do with you? Right,
So it's needed, does that mean you need to do it?
We'll get to that in a minute.

Speaker 2 (01:26:04):
For reference, I'm currently in an honors student at the
University of Arizona's Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program.

Speaker 1 (01:26:10):
That's a good program on the pre law track.

Speaker 2 (01:26:13):
I'm pretty smart top five percent sat Schoolles, who could
probably get into any grad program.

Speaker 1 (01:26:20):
Or law program short of Yale or Harvard.

Speaker 2 (01:26:23):
I'd like to pursue economic and economics masters alongside my JD,
and perhaps even an ECON PhD, but I'm not sure
where's where to study. Most ECON program programs are anti
market without with the exception of George Mason. Given I
come from a comfortable family, Tuition costs, you know, the

(01:26:45):
lower salaries compared to finance an issue. Since tuition costs
well maybe a non an issue. Can't tell if there is.
Since you've gone through both academia and AORI. What's your
advice at entering this world. Well, first, I want to
make sure that your motivation is right.

Speaker 1 (01:27:06):
You need to do what you what your values dictate,
that is what you're gonna enjoy doing. This is gonna
be your career. It's gonna we will spend most of
your time. So don't go into I don't know, into
ref into think tank world or the intellectual world because
it's needed. Go into it because you're passionate about.

Speaker 2 (01:27:28):
It and you really want to do the work, and
you think you'll really enjoy it, and you think this
is where you will be happy spending most of your life.
So if you've decided, you really decided you want to
go into economics and you want to get to a
law degree in economic degree, I do actually think Judge

(01:27:49):
Mason is a is a great place to go.

Speaker 1 (01:27:51):
Now you're gonna struggle with the temptation. Judge Mason University
is very good.

Speaker 2 (01:27:58):
The economics department is very good at convincing people that
anarchy is the right political system.

Speaker 1 (01:28:05):
So you're gonna have to fight that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
It's going to be difficult because their professors are very
very smart and they make the best arguments possible for anarchy.
And the more objectivism you know going into that program,
the more you'll be able to resist the temptation to
be absorbed by it. You could also go to Clemson,
which has a decent econ department, I don't remember if
they do a PhDs. Judge Mason, they do, and they
have a decent law school where for example, Adam Mosov

(01:28:30):
teaches in their law school. So they've got a decent
law school in a good economics department. So it's a
good place to go at that point.

Speaker 1 (01:28:39):
Once you are.

Speaker 2 (01:28:42):
Once you have the PhD in economics, then you can
decide do I want to be an academic and go
and teach and or do I want to come to
the Ironman Institute. And maybe at that point in the
iron Man University they'll be a demand for somebody to
teach economics. I know today there is some demand for
somebody to come in and teach economics and become a
professor at the Iran Institute.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
So one thing I.

Speaker 2 (01:29:04):
Would encourage you to do, and I can't remember if
you're already doing this or not. One thing I'd encourage
you to do Lincoln is take as many classes as
you can at the ARU from AARI, take as many
classes as you can. Let them know that you want
to become an intellectual, so that they give you kind
of a put you on an accelerated track. You don't

(01:29:27):
get involved with all of the undergraduate and graduate programs
at the Iron Ran Institute. Why you're getting your PhD
in economics, even if it slows you down, do not
stop taking classes from the institute. Keep taking classes at
the ARU, Keep stay.

Speaker 1 (01:29:43):
Involved with the I with ARU because it will it
will give you an It will give you it will
help you resist kind of many of the arguments and
give you the tools to argue back against ag amount
your professors will make. And it will give you an
opening once you graduate with that PhD to come and

(01:30:05):
work at AARU. But that's what we're looking for.

Speaker 2 (01:30:08):
We're looking for people who have PhDs in economics and
really no economics to come and teach today?

Speaker 1 (01:30:13):
Are you? And and also no objectivism? Right importantly, no
economics and no objectivism to come and teach today? Are you?
So absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:30:24):
You know, go and and I see no problem in
pursuing that track if that's really what you want to
do versus the finance career you seem to have wanted originally.
So figure out what you really want to do it
and go and do it, and the institute will create
opportunities for you to become an intellectual within the objectivist world.

Speaker 1 (01:30:44):
Once you have a PhD.

Speaker 2 (01:30:46):
There won't be any problem if you're a PhD and
an objectivist, They're going to be lots of opportunities for you.
Lincoln continues your point on debunking the housing meme. Gave
me an idea for you to make its own show.
The idea that life was beat in the fifties eighties
is very common, with wage stagnation since nineteen seventy one

(01:31:09):
and affordable fifties housing being related. Yeah, I mean, I've
talked about that many many times on the show. I
could do a whole show just debunking that, you know, absolutely,
But yeah, all right, nicokap, could you make a show
about your favorite composers and their best pieces? Yeah, I'll

(01:31:30):
probably do it as a member's only show. So I'm
glad to see you a member. That's a good idea
for the next member's only show. Thomas, where does the
claim that logic leads to authoritarianism come from? Peacock raises
this phnominous parallels too. How did logic get tied to apathy?
I'm not sure why apathy.

Speaker 1 (01:31:49):
I assume you've seen How did logic get tied to authoritarianism?
You know, I think it goes in a sense all.

Speaker 2 (01:31:54):
The way back to Plato, though Plato never used the
term I don't think used the term logic in this context.
But the idea is that, you know, logic, reason, rationality,
only some people have access to that, or let's say,
really really smart people can do that much better than
the rest of us, and therefore those people should guide

(01:32:17):
our lives.

Speaker 1 (01:32:18):
We are not very rational, we are weak, we are
not that smart.

Speaker 2 (01:32:23):
We should let smart people make decisions for us because
they'll make better decisions for us, because we can't sustain
our lives. So that's I think where it comes from.
It comes to this idea that logic, reason, rationality qualities
that are associate with intelligence, and since most people are
not intelligent enough to really to live up to that,

(01:32:48):
you know, execute on logic and all of that, that
we need. We need guides, We need authorities to tell
us how to live and what to do. I think
that's a connection. Jonathan, thank you Adam for quitting heritage
great shows lately.

Speaker 1 (01:33:06):
You're on. Thank you, Jonathan appreciated.

Speaker 2 (01:33:08):
Jonathan continues, You're on Brook as the James Brown of philosophy,
the hottest working man in show business.

Speaker 1 (01:33:17):
Thank you, Thank you, thank you, Liam.

Speaker 2 (01:33:19):
Ironic when Bill O'Reilly is the only major Republican to
come out and condemn Tucker and Candice Owen.

Speaker 1 (01:33:25):
Wow, Bill O'Reilly did that? All right?

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
Bill O'Reilly my nemesis from the two thousands. It's gonna
know he's still around, Harper Campbell. Since Goldwater? Did the
Conservatives typically place the capitalism before the Christianity. Now it's
the other way around. No, I mean, Conservatives never placed
the capitalism before the Christianity. And indeed they've never been capitalist.
And this is why conservatives, I mean, what government has

(01:33:50):
been conservative since?

Speaker 1 (01:33:52):
What government has been po capitalist? Since Goldwater?

Speaker 2 (01:33:56):
I mean, maybe, arguably for short period of time Reagan
you could argue, at least verbally and in terms of
rate of growth of spending, non military spending was very.

Speaker 1 (01:34:06):
Low, and there was some deregulation.

Speaker 2 (01:34:10):
But overall Conservatives have not been stringent advocates for capitalism.
It's always been weak. Now it's completely gone, that is
the difference. Now it's completely gone.

Speaker 1 (01:34:22):
But they were never.

Speaker 2 (01:34:25):
Never placed a beg emphasis in capitalism and whatever capitalism
there were, as Irvin Crystal would say, we'll give it
two cheers, and Michael Novak one cheer, So even the
most animate conservatives would only give capitalism to or even
one cheer, whereas they give Christianity three cheers.

Speaker 1 (01:34:45):
You know, so yeah, it was always Christianity first, James.
It is?

Speaker 2 (01:34:53):
Is it like the Supreme Court will throw out the
tariffs before the end of the year. Well, the stock
market boom. I think the Servian Court rule throughout the tariffs.
I don't know about the timing. I haven't looked into it,
but it's likely I think before the end of the year.
Maybe I shouldn't say that because I'm not sure. Will
the stock market boom? I don't know, because the stock

(01:35:13):
market has so much positive already priced in, and it's
already pricing I think a significant weakening of tariffs if
nothing else. And also remember Trump won't give up on tariffs.
He'll just use another statute to increase them. This is
a cornerstone of his agenda. So I don't know if

(01:35:34):
the stock market will boom. I don't like to make
stock market predictions rue downs. I know from personal experience
the new listeners find you by commenting about find you
by commenting.

Speaker 1 (01:35:48):
On conservatives and leftists. They need to hear a new perspective.

Speaker 2 (01:35:55):
So it's my commenting on conservatives and leftists that causes
them to find me. Yeah, I'm going to continue. I'm
going to continue. And I agree they need to hear
a new perspective. And they're out there and and and
they're listening, and hopefully, hopefully we will sway some of them. Lincoln,
thank you for the sticker. Stephen Harper, thank you for

(01:36:18):
the sticker. Appreciate it. Michael, I think Alex Epstein should
take advantage of the conpolitical climate and create an Epstein
file that gets captured by Google searchers but directs people
to his website.

Speaker 1 (01:36:36):
You know, I know that's meant to be funny and
it's on, but but you have.

Speaker 2 (01:36:39):
To be really careful because people people like because of
the similarities name you do not want to be lumped together,
you know, particularly in the kind of environment that we live.

Speaker 1 (01:36:51):
Right now, not your average algorithm.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
Did you see Alun musk response to critics of his
trillion dollar pay package. He was practically citing, yeah, reciting
Golts Golts a speech. Yeah, I mean there was strong
elements of iron Rand in that, and of course Elon
Musk is red iron Rand. And is in the past
quoted iron Rand and quoted out Shrugged. So it was
pretty good. It was pretty good.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
And he's absolutely right and good fair Lawn.

Speaker 2 (01:37:21):
I mean, as I've said in the past, Elan is
infuriating because you know, you love him one day and
you hate him the next.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
And he's a complete he creates complete whiplash. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:37:33):
He says great stuff and you go, oh, this is fantastic,
and he says awful stuff, and oh my god, what
do you say? You know, so you know, he's he's
all over the place, and he does not have a
consistent base, a consistent ideology, a consistent frame of consistent principles.

Speaker 1 (01:37:48):
I wish he did. The world would be much much
better if he did. Hawpa Campbell.

Speaker 2 (01:37:53):
Do you get the highest super Chat revenue of any
podcast relative to the size of audience? I think what
was I number two or something like that. I'm way
up there relative to the size of audience Superjet. Yes,
I don't know if at number one, but I'm close.
Kim says Wednesday was great. Too many wacky Christian conservatives

(01:38:15):
at the event, though, bummed you didn't debate the priests.

Speaker 1 (01:38:19):
Well, there were. It was interesting the priest.

Speaker 2 (01:38:21):
It was in an auditorium owned by a church, and
the Catholic priest of the church was there in the audience.
You're sitting in the back, but one of his seminary
students was in the front wearing a collar.

Speaker 1 (01:38:35):
Right, he was there. And the fascinating thing about the
seminary student is that he was.

Speaker 2 (01:38:40):
Constantly rolling his eyes and shaking his head when the
people defending Christianity were speaking, because they were talking nonsense
but historically in theologically.

Speaker 1 (01:38:55):
And he was, you know, doing this when I was speaking.

Speaker 2 (01:39:01):
And when the vote came at the end of whether
you think the proposition is right or wrong Christianity will
destroy the West, he abstained. And I don't think he
abstained in the beginning. I think in the beginning he
was clearly against the proposition. I think it's I think

(01:39:23):
I made a good case that he acknowledged the truth,
at least was historically true. And I think he was
embarrassed to some extent by the people defending Christianity.

Speaker 1 (01:39:38):
And it was fascinating to watch his face as they
were talking.

Speaker 2 (01:39:41):
So this is a seminary student, and he actually wanted
to make a speech, And I wish they'd led him,
but he wasn't one of the people they let give speeches.
All right, Clark, Misery is always the goal of the envious,
the momentary thrill they get from making you as miserable
as they are.

Speaker 1 (01:39:57):
Yes, that is envy for you, Christian. Glad to see
you in church Wednesday. Yes. Uh, if Christianity defines Western civilization,
would those Christians consider countries like Armenia in Latin America
to be Western? No? I well, it depends.

Speaker 2 (01:40:15):
Maybe some of them would, but many of them wouldn't
because they associated with a certain type of Christianity affiliated
with Europe, Europe and Europeans. But that would have been
an interesting question to ask them.

Speaker 1 (01:40:28):
I I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:40:30):
I don't know if they would consider it er. They
also would separate Armenia. For ex, Armenia, for example, is
Orthodox Christianity. And I think they associate Western civilization with
the with the Western Church, not with the Eastern Church,
not with the Greek Orthodox or the Russian Orthodox Church.
And that I think is how they separate out Western civilization.

(01:40:52):
Uh so, maybe not with regards to Armenia, but yes
with regards to Latin America. What about Africa? That is
becoming more and more Christian.

Speaker 1 (01:40:59):
I doubt that they would consider Africa Western civilization even
though they're Christian.

Speaker 2 (01:41:04):
I mean, the population of Africa Christianity's growing dramatically, particularly Catholicism,
So I think at the end of the day they
for them Western civilization is a combination of race and religion.

Speaker 1 (01:41:19):
Jamie.

Speaker 2 (01:41:21):
Golf courses use chemicals that have been shown to significantly
increase risk of Parkinson's other neurologogical conditions. Does the public
have the right to block private enterprise from building golf
courses close to them?

Speaker 1 (01:41:32):
Well, I mean this is simple.

Speaker 2 (01:41:35):
People should sue the golf courses that have used those chemicals,
and if they win the lawsuit and they get damages,
then that'll raise dramatically raise the cost of building a
golf course and make it impossible, you know, prevent them
from using those.

Speaker 1 (01:41:53):
Kind of chemicals. Of course, if it's really proven, and
I doubt that it's proven, I'm very very skeptical of.

Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Of of the fact that of the idea that chemicals
in golf courses create a responsible for parkins is very
skeptical of that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:09):
But let's assume it's true. Uh, then and IF's unequivocal
and it wins.

Speaker 2 (01:42:14):
In a court case, then yeah, the EPA or Congress
has pass a law banning the use of those chemicals
because they clearly cause harm.

Speaker 1 (01:42:22):
They're clearly a violation of individual rights. But you'd have
to prove it, and I haven't seen.

Speaker 2 (01:42:28):
I mean, if that was true, I would expect there
to be massive lawsuits in the works and uh and
and a lot of pressure on the e p A
to ban these chemicals. So I don't know that I've
seen that. I'm not an expert. I haven't followed this,
but I haven't seen it. Thomas, why debate politics if

(01:42:53):
it's downstream of ethics and pistemology and metaphysics, why not
debate a pistemology metaphysics instead, because nobody will debate and
nobody will come to a debate where you talk about
epistemology and ethic and metaphysics.

Speaker 1 (01:43:05):
Nobody's interested in that. If you debate politics, you bring
up epistemological and ethical issues in the debate. The debate
is filled with ethical issues. If you debate capitalism, you're
talking about its morality. You're talking about where it's ethical,
and therefore you have to define standards of ethics and
but but by in the way that you debate, you model,

(01:43:28):
you show a proper epistemology, you're showing your audience how
to do with pistemology, how to think about the world.
Epistemology is not just technical epistemology for most people. Most
people will never uh you know, really examine and think
through and fully accept measurement emission in concept formation. They won't.

(01:43:51):
They won't get that. What you need to teach people
is how to how to on a day to day
basis think, how to use concepts, how to use their mind.

Speaker 2 (01:44:00):
And the best way to do that is not to
teach epistemology or to teach metaphysics. The best way to
do that is to model it. And one of the
ways to model it is to debate politics. Hopefully on
the show, I try to model good at pistemology and
good metaphysics and reality oriented.

Speaker 1 (01:44:20):
I seek the truth. I want facts. You know, it's
not about people's emotions, it's about reality. It's about facts.
I look to integrate, I look to induce, to look
at reality and facts and repeated patterns and what's going
on and understanding causality.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
That is what people need to learn about epistemology and metaphysics.
They don't what they you know, it's to elevate thinking.
It's not the technicalities of metaphysics and epistemology that they
need to learn and they need to get. And the
reality is that if you actually did ethics of pistology
or particularly metaphysics and personology as subjects, nobody would come.

(01:45:04):
Nobody's interested in learning those things except for a few philosophers.
What you need is to show how to do it,
how to think, how to approach topics, and that's what
you model when you debate political or cultural issues. Good question, though, Andrew,

(01:45:25):
why do you think the self declared masters of negotiation,
who is the self declared master of negotiation, who is
our president, decided to sit on the sidelines during the
government shutdown and not try to lead negotiations. He was
utterly uninterested. Well, because he's utterly uninterested. He's not interested,
you know from his perspective. You know, he was an

(01:45:47):
opportunity to make the Democrats look bad. He thought that
at least, and he has a certain nihilistic tendency to
see things broken. He likes to break stuff, and this
as an opportunity to break stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:46:01):
He fired a lot of people. He thought it's an Opportunityfy.
Now he's being forced to hire them all back by
the deal, you know, the negotiated deal to the end.

Speaker 2 (01:46:10):
So I just don't think. I think it was his
way or the highway. That's what he told Democrats, and
he wanted to break the Democrats. So he wasn't interested
in negotiating. He's not interested in the mechanics of government.
He's not interested in legislation generally. That doesn't interest him.
He'll do it, but it's not what drives him. It's

(01:46:30):
not what gets him. Andrew, do you think the standing
ovation by the religionists was out of respect for your
commitment to rational argument despite their disagreement, or were they
converted to the content of your argument. No, it wasn't
that they were converted, because we had a vote at
the end and some changed their mind, but very few.
It was respect for my ability to argue, respect for

(01:46:55):
my passion.

Speaker 1 (01:46:56):
And for my skill in presenting my case.

Speaker 2 (01:47:00):
It was clearly that, and they got a lot of
comments to that effect afterwards. It wasn't that they I mean,
maybe some of them. It caused some cognitive dissonance and
cause them to rethink their position, which I think is true.
But again it's modeling the right approach, which I think
has ultimately a long term impact of people changing their minds.
They might not change their mind at the debate, but

(01:47:21):
it might cause them to rethink some of the things
they believe, which leads them into a whole sequence of rethinking.

Speaker 1 (01:47:27):
A lot of what they believe. Mars from Ours just
thank you for doing what you do. I appreciated Mars
from ours. Thank you, Jamie before.

Speaker 2 (01:47:43):
Taller in nineteen oh the law nineteen eighty six hospitals
could turn away emergencies in a full private healthcare system.
Would some people in emergencies get turned away?

Speaker 1 (01:47:54):
Yes? Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:47:58):
I think most people would not because a they'd have insurance.
Almost everybody would. Some people wouldn't have a chance, but
they'd be a charity wing a charity fund of a hospital.
But some hospitals might not have that fund and it
might not might not have the capability of providing charitable services,
and they would turn them away.

Speaker 1 (01:48:19):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:48:20):
I think it would be very very rare. It would
be the exceptional case. And again incentive to get insurance,
and you say, oh, you know people can't afford it. Well,
it's an incentive to be able to afford it. And
of course, if you privatize healthcare completely, then.

Speaker 1 (01:48:41):
People would be richer. If you made the world the
free market, people would be rich and insurance.

Speaker 2 (01:48:46):
Would be easily affordable. That's what we should strive for.
Jamie says. With privatized roads, would there be some traffic
slowdowns due to toll stops? Would they be speed limits
and would you be allowed to drink and drive? I
don't think there would be slowdowns because of tolls because
today tolls are electronic. It could be tracked by GPS.

(01:49:10):
You wouldn't even need a machine. All it would do
is you attract every way you drive, and it could
bill you based on which road you drove on to
which owners do you owe the money. It would be
a pretty simple, straightforward process. There'd be companies that specialize
in providing tolling services to owners of roads, and if
you wanted to drive on those roads, you'd have to

(01:49:32):
get a sticker with a GPS tracking and you'd buy
a service from one of the service providers that made
it possible for you to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:49:41):
So no, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:49:43):
Would there be speed limits, Yes, speed limits determined buy
the owner of the roads, and they would have a
strong incentive to do that because they don't want accidents
in the roads that make them less usable.

Speaker 1 (01:49:57):
They want to.

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
Be able to of stores in the roads and pedestrians
and so on which provide revenues. So all of that, Absolutely,
there'd be speed limits. There might also be speed limits.
It might also turn out the insurance companies own the roads,
and they would have speed limits because they would want
fewer accidents, and because they would have then they would
have fewer claims to pay. Would you allow drink and drive? No,

(01:50:23):
to drink and drive represents a real threat to other people.
For the police would stop you for drinking and driving
because of the threat you represent to others.

Speaker 1 (01:50:33):
So you know, if you are driving in a risky way,
the police would have their authority to stop you and
test you for alcohol. It is you exhibiting risky behavior
that is a justification for stopping you. Stephen thoughts on
the counter mount of Crystal, the novel themes, movie version,

(01:50:53):
et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:50:54):
I mean, there are lots of movie versions. I generally
like the countermount of Crystal. It's basically a revenge story.
I like revenge stories. Injustice is done to this man,
he spends time in prison, he escapes, and then he
basically destroys his enemies.

Speaker 1 (01:51:12):
Cool. I love that destroying your enemies is a good thing.

Speaker 2 (01:51:16):
Somebody who committed a huge injustice against you should be destroyed,
and so I like the theme of Monte Cristo Justice.
Basically it's all about justice and bringing justice to the
world after a massive, massive injustice. I don't remember any
particular movie version of it that was good. I'm sure
there's several, so I'd encourage people to look for it

(01:51:38):
and definitely read the book.

Speaker 1 (01:51:40):
Read the book. It's a good book. Count to Monte Cristo. Jamie.

Speaker 2 (01:51:44):
Have you heard of the Ostrich call recently in British
Columbia and what's your opinion on it? If so, Does
the government have a right to kill private owned suspected
to be sick with bird flu animals? I think only
if they represent a risk to either human beings, and
it has to be an objective verst to human beings

(01:52:05):
or the property of other people, that is, other people's birds.

Speaker 1 (01:52:09):
So there has to be an objective risk and.

Speaker 2 (01:52:15):
Yeah, I don't know the details about the British Columbia
calling of the birds, but yes, if the risk rises
to such a degree where if this bird infects and
there's no way to isolate the birds, and if the
birds infect somebody else's birds, they will all die and
destroy that.

Speaker 1 (01:52:33):
Person's livelihood, that's a real legitimate risk.

Speaker 2 (01:52:36):
Or if this virus has the potential, a real potential,
not just a small probability. And all of this is
we worked out in law, and I don't have the
answers in terms of the exact numbers. But if this
has the potential to really jump to human beings and
it's imminent and it's going to happen, yeah, I think
some protections have to be put in place. Exactly how

(01:52:56):
you do it and what you do, you'd have to
be an expert to the terms in that, and I'm
silly not an expert. But it's a real issue that
needs to be solved. How you solved it exactly, that
is up to philosophers of law and epidemiologists and property
rights experts to have to figure out exactly. Lincoln Armenia
is a perfect example of Christianity ruined the culture hyper

(01:53:19):
smart people who are successful when secular in the US,
But the Christian Middle East country is so impoverished. Yeah,
I mean, I think that's true everywhere. The more fundamentalist
religious you are, the less as a culture, the less
successful you're going to be. True of Christianity, true of Judaism,
true of Islam, two of all of them. As I said,

(01:53:41):
I'm reading this amazing book about the Islamic Central Asian
They call it an Enlightenment, but Golden Age. It's truly
stunning what they did and why they did, how they
did it, and how it ended in dramatic fashion. And
the Dark Ages of Islam have lasted eight hundred years,

(01:54:05):
nine hundred years, eight hundred something years. Pretty amazing how
long their Dark Ages have been. Michael consistently successful immigrants
on non Christians, Indians, Chinese, Jews.

Speaker 1 (01:54:20):
Et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:54:21):
Hispanics don't perform as well because they are could by Catholicism.
I mean, that's an interesting explanation for I haven't thought
about that for immigrant success.

Speaker 1 (01:54:34):
Probably true.

Speaker 2 (01:54:35):
Nigerians have succeed in America are Christians typically, so that
might be an exception. But yeah, I have to I'd
have to look into that and look at the stats
and and and get a bit of clue on it.
But yeah, that's that's that makes sense. All right, guys,
I have to go. I didn't give credit to my
sponsors today. I will make up for that on Sunday.

(01:54:58):
You you can check out the sponsor is downe below.
Actually add Defenders of Capitalism to our sponsor's list in
the comments below. And yeah, thank you, thanks for super chatters.
You did amazing today. You met our three hour goal
as we as we approached the end of the second hour,

(01:55:21):
So I very much appreciate that. A lot of that
has to do with Troy, but also the rest of
you chimed in lot. You know, lots of twenty dollars
questions and some good stickers, but a lot of twenty
dollars questions.

Speaker 1 (01:55:32):
It really got us to where we needed to be.
A lot of ten dollars questions. So thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:55:37):
I will see you all on Saturday on Sunday, no
show tomorrow, but I'm hoping for a show that will
do a show on Sunday.

Speaker 1 (01:55:45):
See then bye, everybody.

All Episodes

Mossoff on Heritage; Housing; Tariffs; Filibuster; Epstein; War on…? | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Mossoff on Heritage; Housing; Tariffs; Filibuster; Epstein; War on…? | Yaron Brook Show